Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sabbath mode

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Sabbath mode

#161

Post by shliachtx »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #159
shliachtx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See http://chabad.org/812102

Let me be more clear with my question, since that's just information on the oral tradition in general. I am looking for a source that the specific rule against putting meat and milk together was given to Moses, or that it's a direct implication of the written Torah. As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not o…

In reply to your question as to whether a rabbinic decree could be revoked, there is a concept in Jewish law that prescribes that once a rabbinic decree is accepted by the Jewish nation (I.e. Widely practiced) it becomes law. So even if you would maintain the two hour buffer is no longer necessary, it would remain as law in order to uphold tradition.

As an example, the rabbis decreed that Jewish holidays outside the land of Israel should be celebrated for a second day. The reason being that the court which established the new month (based on witnesses who had seen the new moon) was based in Jerusalem, and the Jews outside the land of Israel would not know when to celebrate the holiday, so out of doubt they celebrated the day after as well (in case the month was a day longer)[0]. When the time came that the court foresaw that they would soon no longer be able to establish the new month (due to the exile of the Jews from the land of Israel) they established a calendar by which the new month was to be determined. At this point, the Jews in the land of Israel and outside had the same calendar, and knew exactly when to celebrate the holidays. Nevertheless, the rabbs maintained a distinction between inside the land of Israel, and outside, where holidays are celebrated for a second day until this day.

[0] A Jewish month can be either 29 or 30 days

Re: Sabbath mode

#162

Post by shliachtx »

david-given wrote: post #138
maratd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such an enormous extrapolation from an ultra-specific line. To be fair, cooking a calf in its mother's milk is pretty messed up, so going a bit overboard on that one isn't going to keep me up at night.

Well, not very . The usual agricultural practice for dairy cows is to take the calves away so that they're not consuming the mother's milk (because you want the milk; that's why you're keeping them in the first place). Female calves become more dairy cows, but male calves are pretty much useless, so you eat them. So chances are you'll have prepared veal from the male calf at the same time as its mother is producing m…

The laws of kosher are actually used as an example of a law that we don't know the reason. It is kept only because G-d commanded.

Re: Sabbath mode

#163

Post by thaumasiotes »

ndrscr wrote: post #154
thaumasiotes wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consider the millennia of rabbinical commentary attached to the Talmud How does this differentiate Jews from any other culture with writing?

Consider the Odyssey, a classic example of a Greek text. The Odyssey was codified and passed down through generations in Greece. People write about the Odyssey, but almost no one has writted linear commentaries for it. Lets compare that to the Talmud. The Mishnah is the core of the Talmud, and it is a collection of oral law written down (in about 200 C.E.) by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Like the Odyssey, it is unchanged an…

Are you really saying that the Talmud is comparable to the Odyssey, but not to Plato? I'd expect, since you're talking about a philosophical tradition, that the reverse would be more accurate. Philosophical commentary abounds in the Greek tradition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_Plato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_Aristotle

Commentaries were also written on Homer, but as the Iliad and the Odyssey are literary rather than philosophical works the commentary takes a different form. Here are a few selections from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeric_scholarship#Classical_... :

> Homer does not play a role in any censorial evaluation of Aristotle as a critic, but appears in a professional study of poetry, the "Poetics", with regard to the difficulty with some of his language. Aristotle’s main study of Homer did not survive. It is listed in Diogenes Laertius' "Life of Aristotle" as "Six books of Homeric problems."

> Many ancient Greek writers discussed topics and problems in the Homeric epics, but the development of scholarship per se revolved around three goals: (1) Analyzing internal inconsistencies within the epics; (2) Producing editions of the epics' authentic text, free of interpolations and errors; [and] (3) Interpretation: both explaining archaic words, and exegetical interpretation of the epics as literature.

> there was also a fashion for allegory, especially among the Stoics. The most notable passage is a scholion on Iliad 20.67, which gives an extended allegorical interpretation of the battle of the gods, explaining each god as symbolic of various elements and principles in conflict with one another, e.g., Apollo is opposed to Poseidon because fire is opposed to water.

Re: Sabbath mode

#164

Post by ars »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #159
shliachtx wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See http://chabad.org/812102

Let me be more clear with my question, since that's just information on the oral tradition in general. I am looking for a source that the specific rule against putting meat and milk together was given to Moses, or that it's a direct implication of the written Torah. As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not o…

> As far as I have understood it, it's a ruling that the rabbis made once upon a time, and it has since become part of the oral tradition, but it was not originally a rule.

No, that is definitely not correct. The Talmud is very clear about Biblical vs Rabbinical rules and Meat and Milk is unquestionably Biblical.

But Fowl (chicken) and Milk is Rabbinical. So perhaps that's what you were thinking of.

Re: Sabbath mode

#165

Post by ars »

_halgari wrote: post #150
freehunter wrote: post #3

Clever hack, but if you're coming up with ways to circumvent your religion's practices, are you really still practicing your religion?

This (among a few other reasons) is why Jesus went on a rant against the religious leaders of the day in Matthew chapter 23. One of the practices at the time was for Pharisees to give all their possessions to the temple (of which they were members), therefore effectively being so poor that they could tell their elderly parents: "I have nothing to give you", this practice was known as Corban. Jesus condemned the peopl…

"Corban"?

No, that's not what Corban is. A Corban is an animal sacrifice.

Is your error or an error in your source text?

Re: Sabbath mode

#166

Post by ars »

ndrscr wrote: post #155
Dylan16807 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposite happens too. Look at where the rule against mixing milk and meat comes from. Such an enormous extrapolation from an ultra-specific line.

Just as a sidenote, the Rabbis determine that a fetal calf does not count as meat, so one could actually cook a calf in its mother's milk, according to Jewish law.

That isn't true.

A fetal calf is meat. But it does not require ritual slaughter - the slaughter of the mother is considered sufficient. (This rule actually has implications for the abortion debate.)

You have it reversed.

If you find milk inside the udder of the cow after slaughter that milk is considered meat, not milk. However it's prohibited rabbinically because it looks like milk and can lead to confusion.

Re: Sabbath mode

#167

Post by ars »

david-given wrote: post #138
maratd wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such an enormous extrapolation from an ultra-specific line. To be fair, cooking a calf in its mother's milk is pretty messed up, so going a bit overboard on that one isn't going to keep me up at night.

Well, not very . The usual agricultural practice for dairy cows is to take the calves away so that they're not consuming the mother's milk (because you want the milk; that's why you're keeping them in the first place). Female calves become more dairy cows, but male calves are pretty much useless, so you eat them. So chances are you'll have prepared veal from the male calf at the same time as its mother is producing m…

> I've never been certain what this law was for. Most religious food practices stem from food hygiene laws;

This is a made up explanation by people trying to fit religion into their worldview.

But actually the kosher laws have no reason, God simply said to do them, and that's it. We keep them because God asked up to.

There are some laws God gave reasons for, but Kosher is not one of them.

Re: Sabbath mode

#168

Post by jeffwass »

reuven wrote: post #147
jeffwass wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, I know the Kosher-for-Passover cakes don't fall under the strictly defined rules of leavening, that's why they're officially Kosher as certified by a Rabbi. But for all intents and purposes, again in just my common-person's view, they're effectively leavened. Just like normal breads and cakes, they're fluffy and squishy with tons of tiny air pockets created during the baking process. To me that means leavened. :…

Jeff: They might be effectively leavened, but that's the whole point of a legal system, and of scholars to interpret it. What looks to you (or me) as a layperson like the same thing might not be the same at all. In this case, the technical definition trumps what might seem like leavening to you, because of debates and decisions that rabbis had about 2,000 years ago. Of course, you can decide not to eat such kosher-fo…

Thanks for the detailed reply reuven. Very interesting to see your perspectives, and clarification.

Re: Sabbath mode

#169

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

reuven wrote: post #67
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for Karaites...

Ya know, we were always taught about Karaites in school, but I didn't realize that they still existed until about 20 years ago, when a friend mentioned that he knew one. There is a Karaite community in Israel, and I've read some fascinating newspaper articles about them. Claiming that they only accept the literal word of the Bible, without any interpretation, is a bit far-fetched, given that the Bible is so ambiguous…

There's one nearby in Daly City, CA. Though alas being LGBT I don't think there's any analogue to Reform Karaism!

Re: Sabbath mode

#170

Post by ZanyProgrammer »

maaku wrote: post #126
ZanyProgrammer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well (and I hate reply spamming here but I keep thinking of new things) The Talmud and Mishnah were written hundreds of years after the birth of Jesus. And in the first century, the Pharisees (or proto-Rabbinics, or whatever) were only one sect amongst many. So yes, Christianity followed on a different path than Judaism.

The Jerusalem church, maybe, which didn't survive 70 CE. Modern Christianity descends from Paul and was pretty much made up in a very significant break from Jewish tradition.

True, that makes (most forms) of Christianity today cousins to Rabbinic Judaism, as opposed to siblings (like early Judeo-Christianity and its extinct descendants-Ebionites, Nazarenes, etc).
Post reply on HN